Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

1202123252642

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Well CR had the benefit of everybody expecting it to fail, when it didn't it was elevated in status somewhat. SF on the other hand was hailed as 'the best Bond ever' from the get go. The disadvantage of this is that for casual viewers, they were expecting not just a decent film, but a masterpiece. A good film that is hyped risks underwhelming an audience, going into the same film but with a feeling of trepidation can lead to an elevation of it's appeal should it turn out better than expected.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote:
    Well CR had the benefit of everybody expecting it to fail, when it didn't it was elevated in status somewhat. SF on the other hand was hailed as 'the best Bond ever' from the get go. The disadvantage of this is that for casual viewers, they were expecting not just a decent film, but a masterpiece. A good film that is hyped risks underwhelming an audience, going into the same film but with a feeling of trepidation can lead to an elevation of it's appeal should it turn out better than expected.

    I personally think the hype didn't come out of the blue @RC7. I prefer to compare 'Skyfall' with 'The Dark Knight'. It had a similar kind of impact. Reactions on both journalist screening views were ecstatic. I saw some of the early reaction on YouTube after the British screening mid October 2012......and they were indeed like.......a bunch of fanboys getting crazy of happiness. That fact alone resulted in a snowball-effect.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Well, from my experience I have yet hear someone telling me he/she didn't thoroughly enjoy SF. This includes life-long Bond fans, casual fans, and people who never cared for Bond before. The example I usually give here is my mother and grandfather, hardcore Bond fans since even before the films, who both loved SF.

    Speaking of CR, I personally don't hold it in such a high place as some people, and I would never consider it as the best Bond film ever. It is certainly very good and top 10 for me (mainly because of Craig/Green/Mikkelsen) but a fair amount of cringe worthy moments (the worst being the "dinner jackets and dinner jackets" conversation) ultimately damages it in my view.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Sandy wrote:
    Well, from my experience I have yet hear someone telling me he/she didn't thoroughly enjoy SF. This includes life-long Bond fans, casual fans, and people who never cared for Bond before. The example I usually give here is my mother and grandfather, hardcore Bond fans since even before the films, who both loved SF.

    Speaking of CR, I personally don't hold it in such a high place as some people, and I would never consider it as the best Bond film ever. It is certainly very good and top 10 for me (mainly because of Craig/Green/Mikkelsen) but a fair amount of cringe worthy moments (the worst being the "dinner jackets and dinner jackets" conversation) ultimately damages it in my view.

    I'm mainly talking about the first reactions from screening audiences (newspapers, journalists, movie website editors, etc.) in the UK mid October 2012 :-).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Well CR had the benefit of everybody expecting it to fail, when it didn't it was elevated in status somewhat. SF on the other hand was hailed as 'the best Bond ever' from the get go. The disadvantage of this is that for casual viewers, they were expecting not just a decent film, but a masterpiece. A good film that is hyped risks underwhelming an audience, going into the same film but with a feeling of trepidation can lead to an elevation of it's appeal should it turn out better than expected.

    I personally think the hype didn't come out of the blue @RC7. I prefer to compare 'Skyfall' with 'The Dark Knight'. It had a similar kind of impact. Reactions on both journalist screening views were ecstatic. I saw some of the early reaction on YouTube after the British screening mid October 2012......and they were indeed like.......a bunch of fanboys getting crazy of happiness. That fact alone resulted in a snowball-effect.

    I know, this is what I'm saying. Most of the general public walked into a film that had been critically lauded. It puts you in a certain mindset. I'm just suggesting this might be why some people were underwhelmed. It might not be the product but the expectation that moulds your initial opinion.

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Well CR had the benefit of everybody expecting it to fail, when it didn't it was elevated in status somewhat. SF on the other hand was hailed as 'the best Bond ever' from the get go. The disadvantage of this is that for casual viewers, they were expecting not just a decent film, but a masterpiece. A good film that is hyped risks underwhelming an audience, going into the same film but with a feeling of trepidation can lead to an elevation of it's appeal should it turn out better than expected.

    I personally think the hype didn't come out of the blue @RC7. I prefer to compare 'Skyfall' with 'The Dark Knight'. It had a similar kind of impact. Reactions on both journalist screening views were ecstatic. I saw some of the early reaction on YouTube after the British screening mid October 2012......and they were indeed like.......a bunch of fanboys getting crazy of happiness. That fact alone resulted in a snowball-effect.

    I know, this is what I'm saying. Most of the general public walked into a film that had been critically lauded. It puts you in a certain mindset. I'm just suggesting this might be why some people were underwhelmed. It might not be the product but the expectation that moulds your initial opinion.

    Partially you are right..but I also recall the first screening audience reactions of 'Quantum Of Solace', and those were not that good. Personally I think there usually isn't a huge difference between what screening audiences and generic cinema audiences think of a movie. Moreover, my mum and dad certainly didn't hear from journalists/newspapers that 'Skyfall' was a masterpiece. They just wanted to see a Bond film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm basically defending SF in my comments, if you read it carefully you'll see. Plus, I'm not generalising. I'm offering up a thought for why 'some' people were underwhelmed.
  • Skyfail wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.

    It does not mean you're dumb! it means we're human , there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, its natural when something is talked about to get caught in the hype .
    Look at how the Dalton movies are looked upon then and now is a perfect example but again like haserot said and Getafix repeated, only time will tell.

    Skyfail, this is exactly the type of post that causes division here. Sandy say that she wasn't caught in the hype and then you tell that she's wrong, she was caught in the hype and that it's okay.

    I loved SF and thought that it was one of the best Bond films ever made. But I wasn't "caught in the hype" any more than I was for any other Bond film. There have been Bond films that were unpopular that I loved, and Bond films that were popular that I didn't like at all. For you to say that you know Sandy's mind better than she does is at best arrogant and pretentious, and at worst insulting and demeaning.

    SF has caused a reaction that I've never seen in fans before at the time of a new film's release - some of those who don't like it (but not everyone) feel the need to tell people who like it that they're wrong to do so. They can't accept that people just like it, they need to show people the error of their ways. I'm the first to admit that SF could have done a couple of things better but so could every other Bond film. For those who feel the need to bash SF and the people who like it I could easily find as many flaws, plot holes, or "unrealistic" things in their favourite Bond film as well. The difference is that I won't. Someone disliking SF doesn't make my life any worse, nor does them having a different top ten list of Bond films than I do.

    If anyone is "caught up in the hype" it seems to be the people who frantically need to diminish people who like SF...

    I've been trying to stay out of these debates just for this reason. A very vocal minority who likes to try and verbally beat down those who like the film.

    For the newer fans here who've joined in with the gang, I saw Thunderball in the theater at the age of about 7 in 1968. Long before most of the SF detractors were even a twinkle in Daddy's sperm bank. The last thing I need is for someone telling me what I should and shouldn't think about a Bond film. There's different ways of looking at different scenes that I am happy to explore, but you can't talk to people who don't want to hear what you are saying and so certain know-it-alls around here I generally avoid nowadays.

    Like yourself, public knowledge here, I've said SF has it's share of faults like most Bond films and I am not blind to them. But these know-it-alls paid no attention to that in their rush to trample the many positive things about the film. I don't think it was better than CR but I certainly don't think QOS was better either. The Bond of CR/QOS is not the Bond of SF- the latter is the Bond we all should want to see and have seen for most of the series, who demonstrates all the classic elements of Bond. Somehow, some of the newer fans who joined in with Craig don't seem to realize that.







  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm basically defending SF in my comments, if you read it carefully you'll see. Plus, I'm not generalising. I'm offering up a thought for why 'some' people were underwhelmed.

    Yes, and I partially agree with you no ;-)? You are not generalising now at all. But I do think that the underwhelming reactions from cinema audiences were larger in total with QOS than with SF.

    By the way, I heard this remark 'Best Bond ever' most of the time when a new Bond film premiered. It's usually a trigger to find out yourself if you ask me. And this time around with SF, i think more people agreed with that overblown journalist reaction 'Best Bond ever'.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 498
    RC7 wrote:
    Well CR had the benefit of everybody expecting it to fail, when it didn't it was elevated in status somewhat. SF on the other hand was hailed as 'the best Bond ever' from the get go. The disadvantage of this is that for casual viewers, they were expecting not just a decent film, but a masterpiece. A good film that is hyped risks underwhelming an audience, going into the same film but with a feeling of trepidation can lead to an elevation of it's appeal should it turn out better than expected.

    That's very much a possibility :)
    But personally I believe the critics gave rave reviews and people got caught up in the hype . But it isn't a very unanimous feeling the same which was felt with Casino Royale

    But like you said only time will tell.
    If you give a read to what the other Bond boards have to say , you'll see the Skyfall praise isn't shared by all.


    By the way, I heard this remark 'Best Bond ever' most of the time when a new Bond film premiered.
    Hmm...Never thought about that!

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    I think there's a generational factor at play as well. Many of those who grew up with Brosnan on here still love him, even though many people arriving to the films in the Craig era (or older fans who grew up with Sean or Rog) think his four films are amongst the weakest in the series. When GE came out Brosnan was hailed as many as the 'best since Connery' which as a big fan of Laz, Rog and Tim, I found totally incomprehensible. It is natural for people to embrace the Bond of the moment. Then things move on and people start slating the previous Bond. Kids who grew up on the 70s and 80s doubtless laughed at how old fashioned and dated the Connery films were. Original Connery fans sneered at the ridiculousness of the Moore films. Dalton was trashed and is only now being reassessed (just as happened with OHMSS). Views change over time and films that some fans rave about at the time (GE for example) can end up slowly slipping down the tables.

    Obviously I cannot predict with any certainty what people will think of SF in twenty years time. But what I can at least guess is that when the next Bond arrives, and SF is three, four, five movies in the past, many of those claiming it's the best Bond ever will have changed their tune. A new generation will be cheering on Henry Cavill or Fassbender (or whoever it is) and DC will start looking a little bit dated and old hat to the younger fans. They'll wonder why Bond was so miserable all the time and why he had so little luck with the ladies or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc. It's normal and inevitable. That's not to say lots of people won't still like it. Just that I am reasonably confident that it will assume a position of normality within the series - perhaps highly regarded by some but also recognised for its numerous flaws and weaknesses by others.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    A reasonable assessment and one I'd personally agree with.
  • Posts: 498
    Getafix wrote:
    I think there's a generational factor at play as well. Many of those who grew up with Brosnan on here still love him, even though many people arriving to the films in the Craig era (or older fans who grew up with Sean or Rog) think his four films are amongst the weakest in the series. When GE came out Brosnan was hailed as many as the 'best since Connery' which as a big fan of Laz, Rog and Tim, I found totally incomprehensible. It is natural for people to embrace the Bond of the moment. Then things move on and people start slating the previous Bond. Kids who grew up on the 70s and 80s doubtless laughed at how old fashioned and dated the Connery films were. Original Connery fans sneered at the ridiculousness of the Moore films. Dalton was trashed and is only now being reassessed (just as happened with OHMSS). Views change over time and films that some fans rave about at the time (GE for example) can end up slowly slipping down the tables.

    Obviously I cannot predict with any certainty what people will think of SF in twenty years time. But what I can at least guess is that when the next Bond arrives, and SF is three, four, five movies in the past, many of those claiming it's the best Bond ever will have changed their tune. A new generation will be cheering on Henry Cavill or Fassbender (or whoever it is) and DC will start looking a little bit dated and old hat to the younger fans. They'll wonder why Bond was so miserable all the time and why he had so little luck with the ladies or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc. It's normal and inevitable. That's not to say lots of people won't still like it. Just that I am reasonably confident that it will assume a position of normality within the series - perhaps highly regarded by some but also recognised for its numerous flaws and weaknesses by others.

    Agreed ^
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Well, the term, "best bond ever" in theory could be applied to any subsequent Bond release. SF's a great film but I don't want to wait 4 or 5 movies later to get the next best Bond ever. The movies themselves should be striving to be great, interesting and fun films and with Purvis and Wade gone and hopefully, getting the right people on board for Bond 24, there's no reason why Bond 24 can't be the best Bond ever or at least better than SF (which shouldn't be too hard as, CR imo is better than SF.

    I pretty much grew up with Brosnan but he was never my favorite and I was never sold on his films that much and iirc it was mainly during the Brosnan era that we were really getting all these ludicrous best Bond ever headlines. To me, Connery was and still is the best Bond ever and interestingly enough, most of his movies don't look as dated as some of Moore's.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Totally agree.
  • Posts: 342
    Getafix wrote:
    or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc..

    So are adult women, who used to be child sex workers, not allowed to have a sex life?
  • Posts: 9,847
    Troy wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc..

    So are adult women, who used to be child sex workers, not allowed to have a sex life?

    Apparently not I figured because it was consensual it was cool and felt like Bond was being heroic trying to save her but i guess not

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited March 2013 Posts: 12,480
    Skyfail wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.

    It does not mean you're dumb! it means we're human , there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, its natural when something is talked about to get caught in the hype .
    Look at how the Dalton movies are looked upon then and now is a perfect example but again like haserot said and Getafix repeated, only time will tell.

    Skyfail, this is exactly the type of post that causes division here. Sandy say that she wasn't caught in the hype and then you tell that she's wrong, she was caught in the hype and that it's okay.

    I loved SF and thought that it was one of the best Bond films ever made. But I wasn't "caught in the hype" any more than I was for any other Bond film. There have been Bond films that were unpopular that I loved, and Bond films that were popular that I didn't like at all. For you to say that you know Sandy's mind better than she does is at best arrogant and pretentious, and at worst insulting and demeaning.

    SF has caused a reaction that I've never seen in fans before at the time of a new film's release - some of those who don't like it (but not everyone) feel the need to tell people who like it that they're wrong to do so. They can't accept that people just like it, they need to show people the error of their ways. I'm the first to admit that SF could have done a couple of things better but so could every other Bond film. For those who feel the need to bash SF and the people who like it I could easily find as many flaws, plot holes, or "unrealistic" things in their favourite Bond film as well. The difference is that I won't. Someone disliking SF doesn't make my life any worse, nor does them having a different top ten list of Bond films than I do.

    If anyone is "caught up in the hype" it seems to be the people who frantically need to diminish people who like SF...

    I've been trying to stay out of these debates just for this reason. A very vocal minority who likes to try and verbally beat down those who like the film.

    For the newer fans here who've joined in with the gang, I saw Thunderball in the theater at the age of about 7 in 1968. Long before most of the SF detractors were even a twinkle in Daddy's sperm bank. The last thing I need is for someone telling me what I should and shouldn't think about a Bond film. There's different ways of looking at different scenes that I am happy to explore, but you can't talk to people who don't want to hear what you are saying and so certain know-it-alls around here I generally avoid nowadays.

    Like yourself, public knowledge here, I've said SF has it's share of faults like most Bond films and I am not blind to them. But these know-it-alls paid no attention to that in their rush to trample the many positive things about the film. I don't think it was better than CR but I certainly don't think QOS was better either. The Bond of CR/QOS is not the Bond of SF- the latter is the Bond we all should want to see and have seen for most of the series, who demonstrates all the classic elements of Bond. Somehow, some of the newer fans who joined in with Craig don't seem to realize that.







    Just adding my agreement with everything Sandy and SirHenry have said.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    Risico007 wrote:
    Troy wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc..

    So are adult women, who used to be child sex workers, not allowed to have a sex life?

    Apparently not I figured because it was consensual it was cool and felt like Bond was being heroic trying to save her but i guess not

    I really must have been watching a different film.

    Bond tries to 'save' Severine? In what scene exactly? I thought he shagged her, used her to find Silva and then stood by while she was killed.

    In days of yore 'trying to save' really used to mean something entirely different.

    Yes, if you want to insist on the argument Severine is entitled to a sex life, my point was in relation to Bond's behaviour and actions - not exactly classy, particularly given the unprecedented level of detail the film gives about her abuse as a child. But if that's the kind of stuff you like in a Bond movie then fair enough - frankly you're more than welcome to it.

    I might point out by way of contrast that in QoS Forster made the very wise decision (IMO) that Bond does not attempt to bed Camile - she is a damaged and vulnerable woman who Bond sees as a human being and not just another lay. This is, to me, more in keeping with the DC screen Bond's character and values and further illustrates how different the character is in SF from CR and QoS.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Some good points, although I feel Bond felt more warmly towards Severine than you did.

    For the next Bond film, I wouldn't mind Camile coming back, just realizing that - but not as as huge part of the story. Maybe they could meet en route somewhere, and we could see that she, too, has carried on with her life. That would be nice, especially if there is a Quantum aspect to the story line.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I cannot see Camille coming back.

    Interesting to see the actress is in a Terence Mallick flick. She is in that small band of Bond actresses who have actually managed to go on and have a thriving career post Bond. And to think she previously appeared in a Jason Stratham movie!
  • Posts: 5,745
    Getafix wrote:
    I cannot see Camille coming back.

    Interesting to see the actress is in a Terence Mallick flick. She is in that small band of Bond actresses who have actually managed to go on and have a thriving career post Bond. And to think she previously appeared in a Jason Stratham movie!

    Logistically, I don't see the filmmakers bringing her back, but story-wise I see no reason she couldn't. Barb is even on record in 2009 stating she'd love to bring the character back. BUT, Skyfall does seem to hint that CR and QoS are far off from the events portrayed in SF, so to go back to that arc would kind of be pointless. If Skyfall is indeed much farther in Bond's career, we don't need to revisit that arc.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 5,745
    Sorry for the double post btw. Honestly thought by the time I was done with this list someone would be yelling at me for my last comment.

    A realistic list:

    Joe Wright
    David Yates
    Danny Boyle
    Duncan Jones
    Edgar Wright
    Tom Hooper
    Christopher Nolan

    And that's sticking to strictly British directors. There is quite a selection for them to sift through, and I have no doubt they could get any of these guys on board. However,

    Boyle has repeatedly said he wouldn't want the pressure of a Bond film, Nolan has a film coming out in November 2014 that he isn't likely to delay or leave, and E. Wright and David Yates are likely too far off the producers' radar.

    Duncan Jones is reportedly doing that Ian Fleming biopic, so they may snag him instead for Bond 24.

    My most likely choice, since they liked Mendes so much, would be Joe Wright. My favorites though have to be Yates, E. Wright, and Boyle.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    Yates? Didn't he do Harry Potter? I can't bring myself to watch those films for more than 5 minute bursts - they're so dull. Not entirely his fault perhaps, but the prospect of him doing Bond hardly fills me with a sense of anticipation.

    Now that I've thought about it, I'm rooting for Ken. I think he'd bring seriousness at the right moments along with an infectious sense of fun - something I think has been missing for too long. (And just for the record, by 'fun' I DON'T mean death spewing lasers, raised eyebrows or double-taking monkeys).
  • Posts: 498
    Getafix wrote:
    Yates? Didn't he do Harry Potter? I can't bring myself to watch those films for more than 5 minute bursts - they're so dull. Not entirely his fault perhaps, but the prospect of him doing Bond hardly fills me with a sense of anticipation.

    Now that I've thought about it, I'm rooting for Ken. I think he'd bring seriousness at the right moments along with an infectious sense of fun - something I think has been missing for too long. (And just for the record, by 'fun' I DON'T mean death spewing lasers, raised eyebrows or double-taking monkeys).

    'Ken' who?

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    Skyfail wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Yates? Didn't he do Harry Potter? I can't bring myself to watch those films for more than 5 minute bursts - they're so dull. Not entirely his fault perhaps, but the prospect of him doing Bond hardly fills me with a sense of anticipation.

    Now that I've thought about it, I'm rooting for Ken. I think he'd bring seriousness at the right moments along with an infectious sense of fun - something I think has been missing for too long. (And just for the record, by 'fun' I DON'T mean death spewing lasers, raised eyebrows or double-taking monkeys).

    'Ken' who?

    Branagh.

    He's only recently occured to me and is a bit of a left field choice, but then so was Mendes.

    He recently directed Thor, which I thought was actually really rather good. It's mindless Hollywood popcorn nonsense of the more enjoyable kind. However, what makes Branagh qualified for Bond is that he is really known for his 'serious' thespy acting and directing. Thor just showed that he has it in him to do big budget action entertainment as well. Plus, Thor included Anthony Hopkins and Edris Elba - the bones of a Bond 24 dream cast any one...?
  • Posts: 116
    I think Ken Branagh would be an excellent choice. I'm not sure how much he's envolved in the Jack Ryan reboot beyond directing the first one, though.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Kenneth Branagh is one of those surprising artists from whom I no longer expecting anything but the best! I would be very happy with him. He always seems to have a reason to choose a project, so if he's a Bond fan he would be easier to get. He is also very strong visually, which I think is a must for a Bond director.
    I once stood behind him in a queue (he was just there waiting in line to pay for something), ages ago, didn't have the courage to tell him anything but good afternoon to which he politely answered back.
  • Posts: 498
    Getafix wrote:
    Skyfail wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Yates? Didn't he do Harry Potter? I can't bring myself to watch those films for more than 5 minute bursts - they're so dull. Not entirely his fault perhaps, but the prospect of him doing Bond hardly fills me with a sense of anticipation.

    Now that I've thought about it, I'm rooting for Ken. I think he'd bring seriousness at the right moments along with an infectious sense of fun - something I think has been missing for too long. (And just for the record, by 'fun' I DON'T mean death spewing lasers, raised eyebrows or double-taking monkeys).

    'Ken' who?

    Branagh.

    He's only recently occured to me and is a bit of a left field choice, but then so was Mendes.

    He recently directed Thor, which I thought was actually really rather good. It's mindless Hollywood popcorn nonsense of the more enjoyable kind. However, what makes Branagh qualified for Bond is that he is really known for his 'serious' thespy acting and directing. Thor just showed that he has it in him to do big budget action entertainment as well. Plus, Thor included Anthony Hopkins and Edris Elba - the bones of a Bond 24 dream cast any one...?

    The guy who did Thor, Not a bad idea !

  • In the latest issue of Empire, Kenneth Branagh talked a bit about shooting on the 007 stage for the first time (for Jack Ryan, he directs and acts) : "The Spy Who Loved Me, that's Bond for me"
Sign In or Register to comment.